- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Connected Universe[edit]
- The Connected Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I was hoodwinked at first reading this article, but now I think it's clear that it fails WP:NFILM. The references are not seriously collected but instead are regurgitated propaganda from the filmmaker. No awards won, no serious distribution, not particularly successful. The sourced reviews are all puff pieces by amateurs. Just about the only thing that the film has going for it is a famous narrator, but WP:NOTINHERITED means that this isn't enough. The claims that it is the highest-funded documentary on a particular crowdfunding site could not be independently verified(!) -- neither could the claim that it was the first film to benefit from online distribution of Indiegogo content by Vimeo(!). I argue that this may actually be ployed claims to fool us into thinking this is a notable film (the author of the article is a paid promotionalist who did not follow the WP:COI guidelines, that I can see). Very disappointing. jps (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - this appears only to serve the purpose of being supporting material for a claim of notability for Nassim Haramein, whose article is also likely to be AFDed shortly - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – the "evidence" for notability would be suspiciously specific superlatives, even if they could be independently verified, which it now transpires they can't. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Junk science without evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - From the references and my own search I agree that it fails WP:NFILM. The phrase in the article "highest-funded documentary on Indiegogo at the time" is very sneaky, it was the highest-funded among the fundraising campaigns that were active at that particular moment when the Globe&Mail article was written, but did not break the record even at the time. Other previous indiegogo documentary campaigns had raised more money, indeed more money by an order of magnitude. --Steve (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sourcing issues for this page have been addressed. I don't know why anyone is bringing up 'pseudoscience' or 'junk science' as a reason to delete - this isn't a theory page, this is a film page, and whatever content is in the movie should have no baring on it's notability. Further, this article was AFD'd seemingly right in response to Haramein's own page being put up. The film was highly crowd funded, had multiple trusted news sources feature it, has a well known narrator, and was featured first in Vimeo's video on demand pilot program. — Joe science (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They really haven't. The film shows no general notability, nor passing WP:NFILM - David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the Vimeo video on demand pilot program could have a page, if it was a historic event. This film should be mentioned there if it was a significant part of it. As it stands, every source noting this film's role in this event also notes in the same paragraph, and using essentially the same wording, that it was the highest funded Indiegogo documentary in history at that time, which we know is incorrect by more than a factor of ten. These are press release parrots. See WP:INDY. – Bobathon71 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found a free download of the film and watched it. The film is well-crafted and very poetic, but it is painfully crammed with pseudo-scientific nonsense. - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.